Kobe's Accuser Picture.....supposedly

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by straffo
Sixpence I don't know how the US legal system work ,and it's not the way it work in my country.

In my country the "Juge d'instruction" (equivalent of the DA I think ) build a file at this state the "accusé" is still presumed innocent.
I is still presumed innocent until the juror decide otherwise.

But I've not a extensive knowledge of the way justice work in my country.

Right, Kobe is innocent, but the the DA has determined that a rape has occurred. The jury does not decide that.

[Sikboy]

I bet the writers of "Law and Order" wet temselves with glee when this story broke. I bet a "Ripped from the headlines!" version of this will hit the airwaves by midseason, except the Girl will have been killed.

-Sik

[fd ski]

i think that the second that talk of settlement shows up, it's a clear indication as to what really happend.

If she's after money then civil court will be the place for her, and first decision quite irrelavant.

Also, there is a question of injuries. If you thought you could make couple of million of $$ by throwing yourself into a door couple of times would you do it ?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
See, the difference here is that you dont know what you're talking about, and therefore you try to reduce the level of argument to a level you can understand.

I suggest reading someting, and maybe listening to classical music to upgrade your IQ.

How sad for you, and the Swedish legal system.

One of us has been completely off his nut about this whole argument. One of us hasn't a clue about the question at hand yet feels the need to weigh in without the mearest semblance of an idea. One of us has an arid wasteland for a brain. It's the one of us that speaks Swedish.

Your still wrong by the way.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Black men have big noodlees is not a form of racial stereotyping? Is that what you are saying now?

No,

Swedish men have small noodlees...


Now that is stereotyping.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
No,

Swedish men have small noodlees...


Now that is stereotyping.

The Bell curve is also a form of racial stereotyping...

[capt. apathy]

Right, Kobe is innocent, but the the DA has determined that a rape has occurred. The jury does not decide that.

wrong, the DA doesn't get to determine if a crime has been committed or who the guilty party is.  he just decides if he has a reasonably good chance of proving what he believes was done really happened and by who.

 then he takes it to court and-
1.  he states his case as to what he believes happened and by who.
2.  then the defense attorney states his case.
3.  then the DA presents evidence backing up his case.
4.  defense attorney cross examines that evidence, presents his own evidence, and basically tries to shoot the DA’s case full of holes.
5. when all evidence is heard they both sum up their case and the jury decides what they believe happened and by whom.

meanwhile the judge is the referee who makes sure both sides follow the rules.

there you go. civics 101

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
How sad for you, and the Swedish legal system.

One of us has been completely off his nut about this whole argument. One of us hasn't a clue about the question at hand yet feels the need to weigh in without the mearest semblance of an idea. One of us has an arid wasteland for a brain. It's the one of us that speaks Swedish.

Your still wrong by the way.

About what exactly? The fact that there can be a victim without a guilty verdict?

[capt. apathy]

you just can't be that dense.  

sometimes it is known that a crime has been comitted and the question is who did it.

sometimes you know who was there and the question is what happened.

and sometimes you have to prove what happened as well as who did it (suspected murder without a body, for example)


the Kobe case is the second type.  we know who the players are we just don't know what happened.  there may well have not been a rape, is not then she is no vivtim.  it's just that simple.

yes, there can be a victim without ever finding who's guilty (see the first example).  but this is not that kind of case.  in this case there may not even have been a crime

[Creamo]

Gloryhole.com ought to recruit this suicidal wench. Kobe admits she has adequate practice.

The real victim of this thing is his wife, but it was extremely entertaining to watch her stroke his check writing hand in the news conference. It was almost as bad as Hillary.

[midnight Target]

Hypothetically there CAN be a victim without a guilty verdict, but not in this case.

In this case the question to be determined by the jury distills down to "was there a crime?" In this case there cannot be a victim without a guilty verdict.

Get it?

[Swager]

Kobe Bryant was accused of rape??  When?

[capt. apathy]

but it was extremely entertaining to watch her stroke his check writing hand in the news conference.

apparently he's been real busy apologizing.  heard on the news last night he bought her a new diamond ring, 8 karats.  that's a whole lot of sorry.   he'll be damn lucky if she keeps him though. she could easily take his cash and cut him loose, and he'd deserve it too.

[Creamo]

Oh, I’m sure like Michael Jordan’s wife she knew going in to the marriage the token snow flake 19 year olds were part of the deal.

And yes, being a broke bellybutton blue collar worker, with a wife that would castrate me in my sleep if I ever cheated, gives me pure entertainment that these retards with all their fame and money, are complete failures as men.

 And this isn’t “I’m a superior man post”, I’m not saying if Rude posts he went to shoot skeet I’ll  post in reply that I hunt pheasant and bring them home as food for “Little Half-pint”, or some gay veil of manhood, but I’d be damned if I’d ever cheat on my wife.

Kobe is rich, he’s a fool, and broke dick as a man. Regardless.

[Steve]

Sixpence quote: "Right, Kobe is innocent, but the the DA has determined that a rape has occurred. The jury does not decide that."

WRONG!!!

This is where you are wandering off the path. In a "he said-she said crime", like this very one, the DA does NOT determine if a crime took place.  DOES NOT.  The DA weighs the evidence to determine if they can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime took place.  Again,  in this case, it's the JURY, not the DA that determines if a crime took place.

Like the pepetrator, the victim is only ALLEGED until the jury decides a crime has been committed.

Sorry Sixpence, but you are flat wrong.